the strategic business...• a clear and supportable strategic business case for continued national...

The Strategic Business Case for Smarter Traffic ManagementJanuary 2018

About the Forum

This document has been prepared by the Transport Technology Forum to help drive more effective and efficient management of existing and new road networks as a key national opportunity

Road transport will remain a key pillar of how people and goods move across the nation not just on strategic roads Improving road travel through technology is a core aim of the Forum We provide a neutral meeting place for senior policymakers and investors (government industry and network operators) who are investing in technology for roads management and operation

The Forum promotes a collaborative culture to open the opportunity and address the caution that has historically impeded efficiency and innovation

2

Executive Summary

This report gives broad-brush estimates of the current and future value to the UK of road technology and connectivity to vehicles fusing established sources of benefit estimates with new work on untapped areas This is primarily designed to identify areas for detailed analysis but nevertheless gives an estimate of potential benefits From looking at the size of current problems using published data and evidence of the ability of technology to reduce them we conclude that

The economic and cashable costs of ldquoroadsrdquo - congestion accidents emissions and asset management - are now a pound100bn per year problem This is about four times fuel duty receipts from vehicles and about the same spend as the NHS budget in England

Road technology already saves between pound4-6bn of that cost across the UK with a benefit to cost ratio of between 12 and 15 to 1 compared to a typical road scheme of 3 to 1 This benefit must firstly be safeguarded as it is currently at risk from lack of funding resource and skills pressures and lack of investment It is also a key foundation for connected and later autonomous vehicles

Overall there is a potential to rapidly save a further pound4bn - pound5bn of economic and cashable costs in the UK through adopting technology in the following areas

bull Helping towns and cities across the UK grow without hard infrastructure investment to add extra GDP of around pound25bn per annum to increase productivity nationwide This needs traffic technology spread across authorities to be seen as a national not local investment Local benefits add nationally to give major scheme level outcomes

bull Through providing data and roadside services that help reduce the cashable cost of travel and parking to road users by pound12bn

bull Further reducing the cost of congestion by pound400m pa across all of the UKs roads

bull Reducing the economic cost of accidents by pound360m pa and of emissions by pound400m pa

bull Delivering cashable efficiencies in asset management and planning of pound300m pa

bull Reducing the cost of accessible transport by at least pound20m

Of these areas those requiring the further exploration are

bull Emissions - work is already underway in DfT exploring this but it is a key potential benefit

bull Productivity - as exactly how to help cities grow using technology rather than hard infrastructure needs more analysis

bull Accessibility - reflecting the potential for Mobility As A Service but also unintended impacts

bull Asset management - as the potential cashable gains are high and there is appetite for change in the way roads are planned maintained and operated

3

Executive Summary

This work shows that using technology at the roadside is important as

bull There are clear cashable benefits as well as economic savings for the UK impacting the whole UK road network and its users not just motorways or the major road network

bull Vehicles with a high level of connectivity need to have connected roads to exploit or else the UK business case for manufacturing them could suffer from low home market adoption and the benefits from Connected and Autonomous Vehicles (CAVs) for safety and congestion may not be realised

bull In order that transport data can be shared and then exploited it needs to be collected and the control and management lsquoleversrsquo need to be developed and in place The data collected by the infrastructure and technology will lead to better network planning building and operational efficiencies

bull Smarter parking is an immediate area of benefit in emissions congestion and productivity as a quick win that will appeal to both authorities and users

bull Technology infrastructure can provide high benefit to cost ratio tools for the next 1-5 years that will pay for themselves before longer-term investments can start to deliver

bull There is a virtuous circle of safe speed improvement reducing congestion and NOx reduction bull More data is emerging on the true costs for congestion and safety across the UK between pound20-30bn cost for congestion and pound36bn for accidents Congestion is clearly impacting across all roads and road users in UK ndash not just London or strategic road network

bull These benefits are not evenly spread so deployment needs to target specific areas of safety congestion and emissions rather than taking a broader brush approach For example half of deaths are on 10 of UK roads and most serious accidents happen a junctions

bull Asset management in particular is only now starting to be explored using vehicles as data sources and there is potential for large cashable savings So using technology to address the UK wide local road congestion and emissions plus asset management savings local road safety and enabling wide data use (by collecting it and using it to plan infrastructure better) is a clear benefit as well as paving the connected oad for Autonomous vehicles (AVs) Authorities need confidence to invest in technology locally and this business case needs translating to that local level

4

Executive Summary

There is tension between the national view of the value of technology presented here and the assumption in WEBtag and all other assessments that transport investment has to be assessed at a local level We should be building the national picture from aggregating the local rather than starting with the national and interpreting how this is applied locally This tension potentially provides a barrier to the adoption of the arguments for smarter infrastructure as

bull We have insufficient evidence base at a local level ndash we may have for congestion and safety but it is likely to be impractical for emissions and productivity because the impacts of technology are quite subtle diffuse and difficult to measure relative to a road scheme

bull The small scale of most technology investments will not stand the cost burden of a major assessment This tends to mean that their value is not recognised

bull There is as yet no accepted national view of the value of technology

A strategy for addressing this tension is at least as important as the business case This needs

bull A widely adopted understanding of the place of technology in a modern city ndash it is not an optional extra but is core to effective operation

bull Develop ways of addressing or circumventing the traditional detailed local assessments enshrined in WEBtag

5

Executive Summary

The following table summarises the benefits that are now detailed and explained in the rest of the report It shows that future new large benefits come from untapped areas like productivity and reduced demand not from current areas like congestion and safety

6

Area of problem (in order of current knowledge)

Magnitude of value of problem per year

Our capability at the moment ndash what benefit are we protecting

Potential to gain new benefit in 5 years

Potential for benefit from Technology

Rank by size Confidence in capturing these new benefits through evidence

Action to deliver benefit

Congestion pound20bn ndash pound30bn cost

High ndash many tools and high penetration of technology

Medium ndash from new tools and new data

2 saving of pound20Bn = pound400M

4 High Safeguard current tools and develop new ways to reduce congestion

Safety pound36bn cost Medium - most improvement is vehicles education enforcement

Low ndash as most tools now in place and core of less addressable accidents

1 of pound36bn = pound360M

5 Medium Ensure we use tools to the fullest and explore key niche areas

Emissions pound20bn ndash pound40bn cost

Low - little technology impact

Medium High ndash from new tools and emissions driven traffic management

pound20bn ndash pound30bn cost

3 Unkown-needs addressing

Needs further assessment but potential gains large

Cost of travel pound124bn Lowmedium ndash freight management is in place and getting smarter but rarely links to network management

Low ndash as although new opportunities such as freight priority emerge the vast changes will be via vehicles and the fleet industry

1 of pound124bn = pound12bn

2 Unknown ndash needs more work

Area needs further assessment and evidence but potential gains large

Productivity Untapped GDP increase on top of pound1000bn GDP in cities

Low In the future the potential to improve productivity will relate more to managing and influencing demand

Medium ndash as this is a largely untapped area


1 Currently low Consider UK traffic infrastructure as a nationwide asset on lines of major scheme increasing GDP

Accessibility pound2bn Low Medium ndash MAAS and other services may offer new means of travel

1 of pound2bn = pound20m 7 Unknown ndash needs more thinking about impacts of MAAS

Lower order of magnitude but may be much wider benefits

Asset management and planning

pound10bn Low ndash little use of data and technology to reduce costs

High 3 of pound10bn = pound300m

6 Unknown - clear candidate for more work

Area needs further assessment but potential large

Total around pound220bn plus lost GDP

around pound4-5bn

Introduction

The need for a Strategic Business Case

This report looks at ldquotop downrdquo figures for the scope and overall size of the potential areas of benefit from infrastructure and connectivity of roads across the UK Together with ldquobottom uprdquo detailed work to follow on this aims to show

bull a clear and supportable strategic business case for continued national investment in Smart Infrastructure for roads and

bull the additional benefits from addressing problems in an integrated approach to road transport technology rather than the focus so far on automotive led solutions

This is in line with the Forumrsquos Vision for ldquoJoined up technology and people to make roads work better - simpler cleaner safer faster and more reliable - supporting innovation and enabling growthrdquoThis is not a complete analysis of the potential benefits -its aim is at this stage to identify where there is an ldquoundiscovered countryrdquo of benefits where more work is needed to model them in more detail The work was initiated in 2016 and reviewed with new data in 2017

Individual problem areas of potential benefit

We have established initial quantified estimates of potential future benefit for

bull Congestion ndash ie road travel taking longer than optimal times Note that there are many assessments of congestion with various costs allocated so we focussed on those using the DfTrsquos Webtag approach

bull The cost of travel without congestion ndash even without congestion travel and transport is a major cost to users and a barrier to industry and increasing GDP (parking insurance fuel)

bull Productivity increases ndash this reflects the GDP growth beyond that from reduced congestion due to accumulation and agglomeration effects

bull Safety ndash ie fatalities injuries and accidents involving all types of road user

bull Reduction in emissions ndash ie both as a contributor to greenhouse gases and more locally as a cause of fatalities and disease in cities This might be the key benefit from making traffic smoother without necessarily improving journey times

bull Accessibility ndash ie supporting a level of service for all travellers in all places

bull Asset delivery and management ndash ie the cost of planninginstalling new road infrastructure and to maintain current infrastructure

An initial assessment of benefits already achieved by this technology ndashwhich need to be protected or are at risk from underfunding - is also derived

7

MethodologyThe objective at this first stage is to understand

bull What the current level of benefit is from transport technology ie how much worse the situation might be without the current level of deployment

bull Which areas of future benefit are well understood and quantified and where knowledge is sparse or unsupported by evidence and therefore additional analysis is required

bull Where there may be benefits from integration and joining together previously disparate approaches As an example a service combining satellite navigation parking and signal timing information could reduce congestion and emissions and increase the attraction of the city centre all from a single app or device

While many areas have mutually supportive benefits ie reducing accidents reduces congestion which improves emissions there will be also be tension For example the same combination as above would push against the wider use of public transport and improved accessibility and may have safety implications It is finding the ldquosweet spotrdquo in this balance that is the challenge

It is also important to realise that not all monetary benefits are the same or have the same attraction

bull What we term for simplicity as ldquocashablerdquo benefits mean industry drivers or roads authorities spend less real money This is increasingly a key driver for government compared to

bull What we term ldquoeconomicrdquo benefits where such measures as safety driving time emissions etc are monetarised but there is no direct saving to the user only to the wider economy

Of course there are combinations of these types of benefits ndash reduced emissions will have an economic benefit of saving lives but also may avoid in the short-term air quality fines and reduce the costs of cleaning city buildings (hard cash savings for an authority) Reducing driverrsquos time in congestion is only a true cash saving in some circumstances ndash eg a taxi but for a typical driver commuting there is only a marginal saving on fuel but a big improvement in customer service

In theory providing additional capacity for transport should help improve GDP but this relies on the capacity being taken up where there are bottlenecks and additional ldquoproductrdquo being developed In the case of the M25 or a local small city for example attracting global companies to site their headquarters near to good transport links is good for GDP Hence we look specifically at productivity increases in GDP due to these impacts above and beyond simply congestion reduction

There are also much wider hidden benefits we have not assessed (as the pool of quantifiable benefit is already big enough) Examples include that if ldquoMobility as a Servicerdquo (MAAS) replace parked commuter cars car parks might be freed for development as housing These benefits are beyond this ldquofirst passrdquo document but should not be forgotten These could impact on GDP in the long term beyond the timescale of the TTF vision

8

Comparing and quantifying benefits Review of published data

Looking at literature about the benefits of technology there is a great deal of hype and unsubstantiated assessments of benefits Although these are unlikely to stand up to detailed scrutiny they do provide a headline figure that is accepted due to its style rather than its substance Such hype is actually quite useful for the Forum as our work tends to be conservative in its benefits assessment So being lower than these headline figures already adds a sense of realism and acceptability

Our quantification of benefits falls into three groups

a) Could be large but we donrsquot know how to capture them or how much

These costs are largely vehicle related ndash at 40p per mile 311 billion vehicle miles is pound124bn Improving road transport so fuel loading and other efficiencies could gain even small improvements would deliver a large saving But we have little evidence to date of how to gain this benefit with intelligent infrastructure rather than say fleet management services so looking at how to reduce both vehicle miles and cost per mile would be a good investment

Costs due to emissions are hard to estimate and benefits even more so But far more work is needed here DfT have already recognised this but it is an area for this business case where expert analysis would be a good investment

Increased productivity is often mentioned as a key benefit from reduced congestion but there is a hidden benefit from people working more closely and goods moving more rapidly the ldquoagglomeration effectrdquo that adds extra benefit The appendix discusses this as a potential extra source

Asset planning and management follows the same pattern These are areas not traditionally at the core of road technology and suggest a new pool of benefit to address DfT are now exploring this

b) Known to be smaller but we understand them already

These are primarily congestion and safety Together they are core to any developments ndash users expect safe and uncongested roads But there may be less benefit than any or all of the above areas

c) We just donrsquot know

How much accessibility might change with Mobility as a Service (for example costs to health land use) we simply do not know We have little evidence of the potential benefits here

9

DfT Transport Statistics 20161

1

Comparing and quantifying benefits Additional unquantified benefits

Better road transport is not simply about fixing todayrsquos problems but being part of new wider opportunities If we succeed what we today call ldquoITS - Intelligent Transport Systemsrdquo and even the term ldquoroad transportrdquo should dissolve into wider sectors ndash in the way for example what we used to call ldquoe-commercerdquo is now part of ldquoshoppingrdquo So there are also other areas of benefit that are emerging not to solve problems but to support new ideas and opportunities Examples are

bull New approaches Better roads support both smart city and mobility as a service Would better roads support the more rapid uptake of Low Emission Vehicles Can 2-hour delivery of shopping function well without better management of parking to deliver the goods What change is needed to roads to support higher levels of automation and the mix of automated and human technology

bull Supporting new disruptive technologies and services These are where existing vehicles and roads combine with new services Uber caught the roads sector unaware and there will be other examples Better roads need to support ndash not hinder ndash new technologies where they align with policy aims

bull Enabling land use change Making road transport better ndash for example reducing reliance on the private car ndash could support changes in where and how we live

bull Benefit to UK industry and government UK industry would be able to create revenue and jobs by firstly providing the UK with products and services rather than foreign suppliers and then exporting these The current value of the UK transport technology industry is about pound400M Equally UK government has a large cost for road transport ndash the NHS and MOD both have extensive fleets that cost the UK when caught in congestion

None of the above yet have clear numerical values so have not been looked at in detailThere is also the potential for revenues from services for authorities as highlighted in the TSC report on User Needs Those most likely to impact the TTF are for example charges for enhanced parking services

This analysis suggests more robust work needs to be done on benefits in emissions asset planning and maintenance and reducing the cost of travel as they are largely untapped areas of benefit Mobility as a Service needs a wide-ranging view of benefits to capture its potential to assist accessibility We also know safety and congestion are current benefits from intelligent infrastructure and need to ensure they are safeguarded with evidence of success

10

Early TTF research based on ITS-UK data

Innovate UK data on the cost of NHS travel

httpstscatapultorgukcurrent-projectstraveller-needs-uk-capability-study

2

2

3

3

4

4

CONGESTIONHow big is the problem

The measurement depends on the definition of ldquocongestionrdquo ndash for example is it time spent driving at less than the speed limit Hence there are varied estimates depending on data sources DfT and Highways England look at average speeds and reliability of speed for a road section (as congestion may not be so much of an issue if it can be predicted) However they have no overall ldquocostrdquo directly derived from this data A useful paper by ITS Leeds has used past data and shown ranges of congestion costs in 2006 for between pound2bn and pound28bn with DfT figures suggesting a cost of pound78bn in 2004 and ECMTdata pound117bn

Data sources such as INRIX and TomTom and bodies such as the CBI also produce congestion scorecards that enable estimates of the cost of congestion by looking at total time as shown below

11

ITS Leeds httpwwwgovscotresourcedoc1535660041321pdf5

5

CONGESTIONA report ldquocost to UK economy of congestion in citiesrdquo by TomTom shows 129 hours per vehicle per year in cities This is pound915m in lost productivity composed of such elements as Belfast pound14m London pound264m Manchester pound169m This highlights the cross-UK nature of the congestion problem and that it is city based as well as strategic roads It is not clear if these values use Webtag data but the UK wide spread is well demonstrated

Data from INRIX published in February 2017 shows pound31bn cost of congestion across 31 cities with a pound968 loss per driver London has a pound6bn loss while Exeter is the UKrsquos slowest city with a peak speed of 46mph Business suffers the most from traffic in Cardiff with congestion between the morning and evening peak periods both in and out and within the city occurring for 15 of days Exeter and London suffer badly from congestion sitting in traffic in the lsquocity centrersquo 17 and 16 of the time respectively during the day This again highlights non- strategic network congestion and was undertaken by transport economists using Webtag values of time

A summary of such estimates is

Source Cost of ldquocongestionrdquo

INRIX pound31bn in 2016 across the UK 30 hours for every UK driver in congestion vs target speed = pound1426 per UK household

CBI pound20 Bn per year total UK cost often quoted 192 seconds per mile lost due to congestion in 2010

TomTom 127 hours stuck in traffic in 2015 for every UK driver

From the above range we can justifiably say ldquowhatever we mean by congestion it costs the UK today over pound20Bn and maybe pound30bnrdquo This is a large enough target not to warrant much further analysis given the broad-brush nature of this work Future work could use DfT data but this may well come up with a similar answer

What causes it

bull Demand for travel simply exceeding capacity for example commuting freight deliveries for internet shopping and holidaytourist traffic

bull Accidents weather roadworks and other asset maintenance

bull Poor network optimisation and control and

bull Looking for parking

12

httpinrixcompressscorecard-uk

httpwwwcbiorgukbusiness-issuesinfrastructurebold-thinking-roads-reportinfographic-traffic-congestion-now-and-in-2035httpwwwtomtomcomen_gbtrafficindex

6

6

7

7

8

8

Unpublished TTF Report to DfT on Future Smart Traffic Management and DfT Traffic Advisory leaflets 0799 and 0397

httpwwwdftgovukpgrroadstpmm42activetrafficmanagementatm12mthsumreppdf

9

9

10

10

CONGESTIONHow does TTF vision help deliver benefits

bull Match demand to capacity (in time space and occupancy of vehicles)

bull Better management to match capacity to demand via better traffic control systems using better data

bull Reduced roadworks and asset management

bull Safety applications for example queue warning weather warnings and better winter maintenance reducing associated congestion

Also congestion is the highly visible outcome of poor roads and network operation It upsets customers is politically sensitive and is a base expectation of a road user

So reducing congestion would be a key target not simply due to the size of the problem but also the credibility of the solutions Congestion improvement also has added gains in reducing emissions as discussed later

How does TTF vision help deliver benefits

There is much evidence that network management eg the SCOOT system can reduce delays by 10-20 across UK towns and cities Other UK traffic systems eg ATM on motorway reduce delays by between 5 and 24

These are existing benefits but wider adoption of technology across the UK can deliver more so we conservatively adopt a 2 saving of the lower band of pound20bn cost as potential extra benefit

13

SafetyHow big is the problem

Here the DfT quantified data is excellent In headline terms the UK had on roads in 2016

bull 1792 deaths in 2016 an annual increase of 4

bull 816 fatalities in cars but 448 pedestrians and 421 on motorbikes and cycles

bull Vulnerable Road Users have much higher casualty rate per mile

bull There were 789 fatalities in built up areas 910 in non-built up and 93 motorway deaths bull They calculate accidents cost the UK pound36bn per year

This suggests that pockets of accidents need addressing by type and location and that while UK roads arenrsquot getting safer overall motorways are not the problem people perceive them to be To add to this the Highways England Annual Accounts 2017 show that Killed and Seriously Injured numbers are increasing on their non-motorway network by 6 yet the target is to decrease by 40 by 2020 This again reflects the pots of cost and benefits away from motorways

The report ldquoCutting the Cost of Dangerous Roadsrdquo by Eurorap shows that 50 of road deaths occur on 10 of roads with the biggest injury cause is behaviour at junctions Simple solutions can reduce deaths including technology ndash the best 10 roads treated saved pound17m of accident costs in one year There remain 550 black sections of road requiring attention This shows a good benefit to cost ratio for targeted not scattergun deployment Technology may add a new tool where enforcement education and engineering does not deliver anymore and roads authorities can use technology as a new tool beyond traditional ones eg at junctions for cycle safety

But there is a challenge here The UK has as ldquoa big picture headlinerdquo some of the safest roads already In absolute terms the UK along with Sweden the Netherlands and Denmark are the four safest EU countries But each death or injury is still one too many and there are still some core issues ndash younger drivers drinkdrug driving older motorcyclists pedestrians that are not impacted by improvements in vehicle safety So it is also an emotive area We cannot be seen to be resting on our laurels

14

httpswwwgovukgovernmentstatisticsreported-road-casualties-great-britain-annual-report-201

httpswwwgovukgovernmentpublicationshighways-england-annual-report-and-accounts-2016-to-2017

httpsroadsafetyfoundationorgprojectcutting-cost-dangerous-roads-british-eurorap-results-2017

11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety

The DfT data shows that ldquofailed to look properlyrdquo was the most frequent contributory factor in 44 of all accidents in 2014 For fatal accidents the most frequently reported factor was loss of control For pedestrian accidents ldquopedestrian failed to look properlyrdquowas reported in 59 of cases and ldquopedestrian careless reckless or in a hurryrdquo 29 of cases Exceeding the speed limit was a factor in 5 of all accidents but these involved 17 of fatalities Travelling too fast for the conditions was reported in 10 of all accidents and these accounted for 25 percent of all fatalities

So human error is the key causal factor in most accidents From the above it is clear that road safety is not simply now about enforcement engineering and education ndash it is a complex system where more sophisticated solutions may be needed for example to reduce ldquofailed to look properlyrdquo at junctions Supporting the potential safety benefits from highly automated vehicles will require infrastructure deployment too

How the TTF vision supports safety

bull Speed and other enforcement technology and other elements such as pay-as-you-go insurance

bull Detecting vulnerable users not otherwise seen by drivers and reduced driver error

bull Driver education and training using data eg fleet management

bull eCall for rural road responses where many accidents occur

bull Better Data on accident causality to understand new solutions

bull Co-operation between vehicles as well as road users

How much might we benefit

There is little proven evidence of the value of technology not already deployed such as speed cameras and Active Traffic Management on motorways Nevertheless there is a great potential from the many safety systems being developed for cycle safety such as eCall so we conservatively adopt a 1 saving of the pound36bn cost as potential extra benefit

15

httpwwwdftgovukpgrroadstpmm42activetrafficmanagementatm12mthsumreppdf14

14

EMISSIONSHow big is the problem

Emissions are often the forgotten problem in road transport Unlike a road accident they do not grab headlines as people being killed suddenly Instead death occurs sometime in the future and it is difficult to allocate the cause to road emissions rather than general poor air quality Air quality legislation and the threat of EU fines have raised it up the political agenda and the recent VW scandal has also raised the level of research again

Current work suggests at least 29000 people are killed in the UK from particulates every year in addition to longer term effects from NOx and greenhouse gases Around 25 of these are understood to come from transport This suggests a rough estimate of around 7000 deaths per year Looking at this compared to 2016 road accidents deaths of 1792 above which have a total cost of pound35bn saving 7250 deaths per year due to emissions would equate to around pound14bn of equivalent road accidents

Emissions and links to deaths are a complex subject but what is becoming clear is that it should no longer be the forgotten problem relative to congestion and safety

Review of evidence

A report Tackling Congestion and Pollution by Greener Journeys shows that halving average speeds leads to 50 more NOx It also shows in Central London that vehicle speeds have caused 10 more diesel NOx from cars and vans and more than 20 for large vehicles They calculate the cost of air pollution = pound20bn per year and note the contribution of vans They also note congestion is UK wideThey show that increasing the speed of a diesel bus from 37mph to 5 mph halves NOX This can be done by bus priority which reduces bus emissions per passenger by 75 compared to cars with a typical benefit to cost ratio of 351 This again shows the relationship between congestion and pollution ndash solve congestion and other gains follow It also suggests more need for greater evidence of impacts It also shows the value of infrastructure-based solutions instead of speed humps in keeping improved speeds safe

A further report from the RAC Road transport and air pollution by Ricardo suggests 534000 years of life lost in UK per year due to NOx and particulates and cost to society for the UK as follows

bull Air pollution pound253bn and carbon pound3bn

bull Congestion pound225bn (which compares well to the figure used earlier)

httpwwwdftgovukvcafcbcars-and-air-pollutionasp and httpswwwgovukgovernmentnewsestimates-of-mortality-in-local-authority-areas-associated-with-air-pollution

httpswwwtelegraphcouknewsearthenvironment10796035Diesel-engines-responsible-for-7000-deaths-a-yearhtml

httpsgreenerjourneyscompublicationtackling-pollution-congestion

httpswwwracfoundationorgresearchenvironmentroad-transport-and-air-pollution-where-are-we-now

15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16

EMISSIONSWhat causes it

Vehicle Emissions in general come as well as engine and exhaust system design issues from

bull Vehicles stopped and in congestion with engines running

bull Vehicles not running at optimal speeds and

bull Poor routeing and choice of time of travel and unladen vehicles

Particulate emissions come not just from engines but tyres brake dust and other matter from vehicles too These can also come from stopstart behaviour especially in congestion and traffic signals and looking for parking spaces These are the key areas where infrastructure can add to automotive related benefits

How the TTF supports reduced emissions

bull Monitoring and information on pollution for decision making and future enforcement

bull Enabling people to use Low Emission Vehicles with confidence and Low Emission Zone charging and management

bull Better signal control strategies to smooth traffic and signal phase and timing (SPAT) to reduce stops at signals

bull Smarter motorway management

bull Smarter parking and emissions dependant parking prices

These are in addition to other benefits from

bull Reducing congestion and accidents as above

bull Reducing the demand for travel (as described later) and improving overall efficiency of travel

This highlights the interconnectivity of benefits ndash and possible potential for double counting Reducing accidents will also reduce congestion and reduce emissions and increase reliability of journey times


Evidence of the value of technology in reducing emission is starting to emerge eg through the COMPASS4D project and recent DfT unpublished research But its likely that this will be highly site and time specific but could offer significant savings from new areas of deployment (in contrast to congestion and safety where there is much in place) So we conservatively adopt a 2 saving of the pound20bn average cost of the sources above as potential extra benefit

17

THE COST OF TRAVEL (WITHOUT CONGESTION)

How big is the problem

Setting apart congestion transport is the key enabler for a vibrant economy but expenditure is huge

bull 311 bn vehicle miles were travelled in the UK in 2014 At a notional 40 pence per mile as agreed with HMRC this is a cost to the UK of pound124 billion Remembering that accidents and congestion were around pound30bn this show that small efficiencies in road transport in general (reducing vehicle miles or the cost per mile or both) could have larger cashable impacts

bull Parking is both a key revenue source for an authority and a cost in terms of congestion and emissions but also the key to a vibrant town centre A report by Privilege Insurance suggests UK motorists spend 22 days a year each looking for parking - 47 minutes per week in Birmingham

bull Many UK companies pay over pound1m per year in penalty charge notice fines for parking as the risk of paying the fine is cheaper than the cost of a late delivery

What causes the problem

bull Cost of empty vehicles poor routeing missed connections

bull Inefficient driving using fuel and wear and tear multiple small deliveries to the same location

bull Parking and parking penalty costs

How can the TTF assist

bull Using technology to make road travel smarter and manage demand and help modal shift

bull Improve vehicle operations (vehicle miles) especially for internet deliveries via better route planning

bull Improve vehicle operations (vehicle miles) via LEV charging points This highlights the interconnectivity of benefits ndash and possible potential for double counting Reducing accidents will also reduce congestion and reduce emissions and increase reliability of journey times


Much of the reduction in non-congestion cost of travel will be due to vehicles and fleet management but smarter infrastructure may also help reduce this through for example demand management We have conservatively assumed a 1 reduction in travel costs is possible but this needs further detailed research

poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014

httpswwwdirectlinegroupcommedianewsbrand201616122016aspx

Source GRID smart cities presentation

19

19

20

20

21

21

18

PRODUCTIVITYHow big is the problem

As well as the cost of congestion and road travel poor transport links stop a town or city from being as productive as it may be in all its business and activities due to its inability to grow sustainably This is often seen as inability for businesses to recruit due to transport poor supply chain reliability and delivery challenges The problem is UK wide and impacts towns and cities but also the strategic networks that feed them to some extent


bull Poor reliability of transport constrains city growth and investment that drives GDP

bull Poor parking ineffective deliveries poor public transport all constrain the ability to recruit and sustain workforces

bull Inability to access resources


bull Using technology to make road travel smarter and manage demand and encourage modal shift to help a city grow without physical infrastructure investment

bull Ability to apply to cities and towns across the UK

bull Improve deliveries parking and adoption of new smart city approaches


A full discussion of productivity gains over and above congestion and vehicle costs is in the appendix due to the complex nature of the arguments but in summary

It is widely accepted that agglomeration ie close proximity of businesses and labour supply to each other increases productivity Work done by the UK city regions suggests that a doubling of city size gives an increase in city productivity of between 3 and 8 with potentially higher values for service industries and lower for manufacturing So if the GDP of primary urban areas - pound1000bn pa then

bull The 5 increase in capacityactivity enabled by technology in effect enables cities to be 5 ldquobiggerrdquo with no fundamental change in fixed infrastructure (certainly in city cores)

bull This 5 increase in effective size gives 025 increase in productivity (based on 5 increase in productivity from doubling city size)

So net productivity gain from technology application

= pound (100000025) bn pa = pound25bn pa

This is a large potential benefit for the UK as a whole even with conservative assumptions of 025 increase in GDP It warrants further exploration

19

ACCESSIBILITYHow big is the problem

22 of all households do not have access to a car There were nearly a billion concessionary bus journeys in England in 2016 and there are 24m Blue Badges for accessible parking It is difficult to put a value to the cost of people not being able to travel but a proxy might be the cost of providing travel for example on buses Local public transport is 14 of total transport expenditure The UK Government supports bus services with pound22bn of net support whereas receipts from fares are pound33bn


Car ownership is both expensive and implies a driving licence is held So many parts of society ndash teenagers disabled elderly people in poverty have no option but to use other forms of transport This can limit their quality of life and freedom can also be costly and has a social cost too


By supporting the move to new forms of ownership of vehicles and new vehicles too Mobility as a Service could reduce the lack of access to personalised transport Automated vehicles could remove the need for users to have driving licences This is a longer-term benefit as yet not fully understood


If we assume technology could help reduce the pound2bn of government support by 1 this gives us a conservative pound20m but this is an area where mobility as a service might make much higher gains and so further exploration is needed

httpsassetspublishingservicegovukgovernmentuploadssystemuploadsattachment_datafile633077national-travel-survey-2016pdf

httpsassetspublishingservicegovukgovernmentuploadssystemuploadsattachment_datafile560716concessionary-travel-statistics-year-ending-march-2016pdf

httpsassetspublishingservicegovukgovernmentuploadssystemuploadsattachment_datafile572802blue-badge-scheme-statistics-2016pdf

httpswwwgovukgovernmentcollectionsbus-services-grants-and-funding

22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20

ASSET MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGHow big is the problem

The UK is investing pound6bn on local roads and pound4bn on motorways from 2015 Planning the best use of this investment to deliver the best value is essential Traditional road planning techniques often deliver inadequate infrastructure by the time the scheme is delivered Highways England spends pound1bn per year on maintenance of roads alone with many local councils spending pound50m on maintenance each The UK local road maintenance budget is pound36bn

There is reportedly a pound12bn backlog of pothole repairs also with claims for damage to vehicles of pound18m

Review of literature

A report ldquoDigital Innovation The Route to the Highways of the Futurerdquo by ADEPT October 2017 shows that 96 of roads by length are local authority managed with the UK having transport infrastructure of the second lowest quality in the G7 countries Of the pound36bn spent on road maintenance 61 is structural and 30 is routins It values the UK local authority asset as being worth pound400bn

It shows many of the same data sources as for the TTF work eg connected vehicle data and highlights the need for a whole council digital view the need for better procurement standards technology agnostic solutions all of which align with the TTF thinking

It highlights the need for assets and traffic management to be joined up in a Local Authority and that there is a risk of local systems being left behind It asks for a knowledge exchange capability to support on local highway systems need for how-to guides and toolkits and a retrofit demonstrator at scale All of this aligns well with TTF thinking

A report ldquoPothole compensation claims 2016rdquo by the RAC shows that pothole claims cost UK councils pound18m per year across 31000 claims (average claim pound432) Hampshire had nearly 2000 claims This is a real hard cash loss to resource strapped authorities so Improved asset management might reduce this

This is not a big value per se but indicative of size of problem Also claims need to be verified ndash authorities must have a cost in administration far more than the claim value


There are many causes from sheer weight of traffic and axles due to accident damage The current approach is for regular time-based surveys of assets using specialist survey vehicles as there is little other data to feed smart asset management solutions

httpswwwgovukgovernmentcollectionsroad-investment-strategy

httpswwwadeptnetorgukdocumentsdigital-innovation-route-highways-systems-future

httpswwwracfoundationorgresearcheconomypothole-compensation-claims-2015-16

26

26

27

27

28

28

21

ASSET MANAGEMENT AND PLANNINGHow can the TTF Vision assist

By supporting the move to new forms of asset management using new data sets collected from vehicles that may allow a more incident based asset management response (fixing a small problem before it becomes large) and trend information across days not years

In addition new data sources can help plan better hard infrastructure investments to reduce the risk of over or under capacity designs being deployed This is an untapped benefit starting to be explored in for example York and through other projects


If we assume technology could help improve the effectiveness of the pound10bn road infrastructure and asset management spend by 3 this gives us a conservative pound300m but needs further analysis The confidence in delivery of benefits is higher as ADEPT also indicate substantial opportunity in this area

22

CURRENT ECONOMIC BENEFITS FROM ROAD TRANSPORT TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT

It is valuable to use the above estimates of future technology to see where benefits are currently obtained to

bull Highlight the benefits that need to be safeguarded due to funding resource and skill shortages and

bull As a sanity check for the work undertaken on future benefits

pound23

Area of problem Magnitude of value of problem per year and type of benefit from addressing


Potential for benefit from technology currently

Examples Evidence of benefit

Congestion pound20bn ndash pound30bn economic benefit and cash


10 saving of pound20bn = pound2bn SCOOT ATM MIDAS MOVA UTMC(Mova alone is valued by DfT at pound220M)

Safety pound36bneconomic benefit

Medium - most improvement is vehicles education enforcement

Say 5 of pound36bn = pound18bn Most fatal accidents with VRUs excess speed etc

Emissions pound20bn economic benefit plus avoided fines

Low - little technology impact so far but some savings from SCOOT MOVA etc

Say 2 of pound20bn= pound400m

SCOOT 37 reduction in emissions

Cost of travel pound124bn cash benefit

Lowmedium ndash freight management is in place and getting smarter but rarely links to network management

Say 1 of pound124bn = pound12bn VMS parking info route planning roadworks info


pound10-pound15bn cash saving

Low ndash little use of data and technology to reduce costs

nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn

Traffic Advisory Leaflet 397 (in 1997 prices)29

29


Discussion of the comparison

If the total cost the current ITS sector as derived by earlier TTF work is pound400m this shows around a 101 to 151 benefit to cost ratio Any single benefit area outweighs this cost These are rough orders of magnitude numbers but show the current value of protecting investment

The future benefits calculated are of the same order of magnitude as current benefits but the technology for these has been developed and installed over many years This suggests a more rapid benefits stream from new sources of benefit

The current values suggest around a 5 nationwide saving in congestion and emissions which is in line with evidence (typically higher values for systems are obtained but they are not installed nationwide) This 5 saving is a useful estimate for additional productivity shown in the next sectionBoth the current and future estimates are generally lower than other reports eg the TSC data report gives pound14bn per annum benefits from use of data by 2025 compared to pound4bn Of this pound4bn is reduced congestion pound4bn of accidents pound500m productivity and pound1bn emissions so pound4bn is GVA In contrast we estimate pound400m congestion pound360m safety pound25m productivity and pound400m emissions

However this is from use of data in all forms so may have some vehicle derived benefits and is on a longer timescale (2025 not 2022)

pound24

The Case for Government involvement to incentivise Data Sharing in the UK Intelligent Mobility Sector30

30

IMPLICATIONS


bull There are clear cashable as well as economic savings for the UK as a whole impacting the whole UK road network and its users not just motorways or the major road network

bull Vehicles with a high level of connectivity need to have connected roads to exploit else the UK business case for manufacturing them could suffer if there was less home market adoption and the benefits from CAVs for safety and congestion may not accrue

bull Sharing and exploiting transport data requires it to be collected and control and management ldquoleversrdquo to use it Hence there is a key role of infrastructure and technology as it enables data use better network planning and road building not just operations


bull Technology infrastructure can provide high benefit to cost ratio tools for the next 1-5 years that will pay for themselves before these longer-term investments can start to deliver

bull There is a virtuous circle of safe speed improvement delivering reduced congestion and NOx reduction

This work also shows that

bull More data is emerging on the true costs for congestion and safety across the UK between pound20-30bn cost for congestion and pound36bn for accidents Congestion is clearly impacting across all roads and road users in UK ndash not just London or strategic roads

bull These benefits are not evenly spread so deployment needs to target pots of safety congestion emissions etc rather than broad brush For example half of deaths are on 10 of UK roads and most serious injuries are at junctions

bull Asset management in particular is only now starting to be explored using vehicles as probes and there is potential for large cashable savings to help resources

So using technology to address the UK wide local road congestion and emissions plus asset management savings local road safety and enabling wide data use (by collecting it and using it to plan infrastructure better) is a clear benefit as well as paving the connected road for autonomous vehicles But authorities need confidence to invest in roadside technology locally and this business case needs translating to that local level

25

APPENDIX EXAMINING ldquoPRODUCTIVITYrdquo BENEFITS

What are Productivity gains

Technology applications to date are heavily focused on congestion reduction but there remain opportunities to further increase their effectiveness and reduce cost through for example the adoption of new data sources and improved responses to travel disruption

To date productivity gains have focused on technology which increases the effective capacity of road infrastructure and which makes our cities and towns more usable (such as urban traffic control and parking management)

In the future the potential to improve productivity will relate more to managing and influencing demand - providing of information to enable more efficient and effective overall use of available national infrastructure capacity This is a key benefit above and beyond simply reduced congestion

This benefit is because cities and major towns contribute disproportionately to the UKrsquos pound18tn GDP Unlike the geographically limited impact of nearly all transport infrastructure schemes applying technology to road transport increases the ability of every UK city and major town to handle activity absorb population growth and deal with new demands for travel and mobility ndash it increases the economic capacity of the UK with little or no major infrastructure cost This wider economic benefit is additional to the congestion costs savings experienced by travellers So this appendix focuses on the ldquocities and major townsrdquo component

Basis of calculationestimate

The ldquocities and major townsrdquo element is exactly equivalent to Web Tagrsquos ldquowider economic benefitsrdquo ndash it is benefit to the wider economy beyond the direct benefits to users represented above under ldquocongestion managementrdquo

Conventional transport schemes are location-specific and the majority are reckoned to have wider economic benefits of zero ndash any effect on the local economy is assumed to be at the expense of other local economies since economic activity is assumed to shift

However major schemes (eg HS2 Crossrail M4 extension in Wales) are often deemed to have wider economic benefits

Wide application of road transport technology can be considered alongside these major schemes because

bull It allows an increase in economic activity wherever it is applied ndash the ldquorobbing Peter to pay Paulrdquo displacement of economic activity does not apply It increases the total economic capacity of he UK

bull The cost of road transport technology is small in relation to the cost of most major schemes

26


So DfT might usefully regard technology deployment to a good standard across the UK as a national major scheme of equal importance to more high-profile schemes One barrier to this is the (unnecessary) presumption that transport schemes need to be location-specific

We assume below that the wider economic benefits are focused on cities since these are the hubs of economic activity and where agglomeration gains (see below) are felt

Basic factsassumptions

UK GDP pound493bn ndash 2017 Q4 ndash say pound1900bn pa Source UK population ndash 633 million

bull Proportion of national population in the 64 primary urban areas including London (population 125000 or more) ndash 54

bull Proportion of national population in London ndash 15

Based on the above we assume pound1000bn pa GDP produced in the primary urban areas (54 of pound1900bn) In practice this is very conservative since productivity in cities is higher than in non-cities with London exceptionally high

Capacity impact of applying technology (to date) - assume 5 ie the combined effect of signals SCOOT parking guidance etc enables cities to handle 5 more vehiclestraffic (including public transport) than without such techniques (=productivity) This 5 is conservative and is broadly consistent with the 20 congestion savings identified by SCOOT and identified as the overall saving currently in place (ie a doubling of effectiveness of technology)

Percentage of urban (non-walk) journeys not by road (ie rail underground etc) London ndash 54m per day compared to 172m - 24 of non-walk trips Equivalent representative data for other cities not readily available but will be a smaller percentage than London

Crude calculation of value of technology applied to roads to date

Basisbull GDP of primary urban areas - pound1000bn pa

bull Technology enables 5 more activity in those cities when networks are operating at capacity

27

httpswwwonsgovukeconomygrossdomesticproductgdp

httpswwwgovukgovernmentuploadssystemuploadsattachment_datafile32181414-802-people-in-cities-numberspdf

httpsdatalondongovukdatasettravel-patterns-and-trends-london

31

31

32

32

33

33


bull This applies for say 13 of the road journeys per day (highest demand during peak periods)

bull Only improvement to road journeys (76 of trips) contributes to this productivity improvement

Therefore net productivity gain from technology application


Alternative Calculation based on agglomeration effects (technology applied to roads to date)

It is widely accepted that agglomeration ie close proximity of businesses and labour supply to each other increases productivity Work done by the UK city regions suggests that a doubling of city size gives an increase in city productivity of between 3 and 8 with potentially even higher elasticities for service industries and the lower elasticities associated with manufacturing

Basis

bull GDP of primary urban areas - pound1000bn pa

bull The 5 increase in capacityactivity enabled by technology in effect as calculated above for existing systems enables cities to be 5 bigger with no fundamental change in fixed infrastructure (certainly in city cores)




(We have not applied the factor of 076 in this calculation on the basis that the pound1000bn is very conservative)

Note that in the period between 2001 and 2011 the population of the primary urban areas grew by 75 The ability of transport networks to accommodate this growth without a corresponding increase in fixed infrastructure will necessarily have been very important in enabling local economies to function effectively

28

httpwwwtransportworksorgevidence-baseagglomeration-effects


34

34

35

35


Potential additional gains

bull New techniques will be developed to continue to squeeze more out of existing infrastructure bull Technology will beneficially influence the patterns of demand for available capacity

bull Continued population growth (a further 10 million between 2012 and 2037 = 16) will increase the necessity to continue to squeeze more productivity out of essentially fixed urban networks

Agglomeration effects

There is a good deal of debate in academic circles about the validity of the concept of agglomeration effects Webtag accepts that these effects exist and can be built into transport assessments However it is worth bearing in mind papers such as that produced by Melia which sets out arguments for and against accepting agglomeration effects Interestingly a number of the arguments that he puts forward for not accepting agglomeration do not apply to technology interventions ndash because technology is very low cost is innovative and is not creating new capacity that will readily be filled with induced traffic So the paper could be construed as saying that technology is a more effective means of generating agglomeration effects than conventional investment in infrastructure


There is tension between the national view of the value of technology presented here and throughout the TTF business case and the assumption in Webtag and all other regular assessments that transport investment has to be assessed at a locally specific level Local transport planning assessments are becoming increasingly complex (albeit with some resistance to this complexity) We should be building the national picture from aggregating the local rather than starting with the national and interpreting how this might be applied locally

This tension potentially provides a barrier to the adoption of the arguments for smarter infrastructure as

bull We have insufficient evidence base at a local level ndash we may have for congestion and safety but it is likely to be impractical for emissions and productivity because the impacts of technology application are quite subtle diffuse and difficult to measure relative to a road scheme which either is or isnrsquot there (eg how do we measure the increased attractiveness over time of a city which works more smoothly)

bull The small scale of most technology investments will not stand the cost burden of a major prior assessment At present this tends to mean that their value is not recognised rather than their value being assumed


29

httpeprintsuweacuk337721Does20Transport20Investment20Really20Boost20Economic20Growthpdf 36


A strategy for addressing this tension is at least as important as the soundness of the business case This needs

bull A widely adopted understanding of the place of technology in a modern city ndash it is not an optional extra but is core to effective city operation The TTF vision is part of this Among authorities TfL is well ahead of the game in this respect regarding road technology as a fundamental part of what makes London attractive to its customers and work efficiently

bull Develop ways of addressing or circumventing the traditional detailed local assessments enshrined in Webtag This might involve

o Using ldquorule of thumbrdquo assessment techniques proportionate to the low levels of funding required for technology

o Regarding technology more along the lines of standardsguidance embodied in DMRB For example cities might be expected to adopt levels of technology provisionmaturity in relation to their naturesize As with a new road expectations of standards of provision could be reflected in budgets

30

APPENDIX-UPDATES AND NEW SOURCES DEC 2017

This review was used to look at new sources of data and how they impactsupport the original document

Report Socio- Economic benefits of Cellular V2X

Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA

Key problem related info EU wide

Key solution related info Benefits are safety led (20) and congestion led (80) (due to areas covered) Much higher benefits than a previous Ricardo study for 80211p (20-43billion Euro net in 2035)

Key evidence This shows large overall EU benefits ndash could be factored down for UK by say 5-10 of Europe to get pound1-4bn per year by 2035 for the UK Low benefits on motorways compared to rural and urban roads Slow impact due to time to roll out in vehicles and roadside

Other action Suggests a rollout of hybrid roadside equipment and a slow takeup of net benefits due to cost of in vehicle ndash not the roadside equipment Highlights benefits from smartphones

Key Summary Looks at just connected vehicle benefits for safety and congestion across Europe with realistic roadside costs

Implication Too long term but gives a high value top estimate of connected and C-ITS

Vision Implication Hybrid or market led communications solutions focussing on roads problems where they occur

Report RAC Foundation Readiness of the road network for CAVs

By Charles Johnson April 2017

Key problem related info Impacts of CAVs on roads eg rutting lane marking maintenance digital maps traffic signals parking

So what Evidence that roads and road systems are not ready for CAVs

Key evidence Shows wide range of TTF aligned areas

Key Summary Roads and roads tech needs a plan for CAVs ndash piecemeal wonrsquot do

SBC Implication To gain benefits from Connected and Autonomous vehicles we need more roadside technology

Vision Implication TTF helps consistent and interoperable transition to support Connected and then Autonomous Vehicles

31


Report The Case for Government involvement to incentivise Data Sharing in the UK Intelligent Mobility Sector

By TSC April 2017

Key problem related info Barriers to data but not clear from what size pot savings are made

Key solution related info Suggests pound14bn per annum benefits from data by 2025 Of this pound4bn is reduced congestion pound4bn of accidents pound500m productivity and pound1bn emissions so pound4bn is GVA

So what Gives a high value estimate for comparison with our work but doesnrsquot assess the current problem size They highlight short term missed opportunity of pound15bn by 2025 if nothing done

Other action Needs a focus on sensing and control at either end of the chain to enable this benefit

Key Summary Roads and roads technology data offers benefits

SBC Implication High value of data use (eg saving pound4bn of congestion)

Vision Implication TTF helps sources and users of data maximise this value

32

About the Forum

This document has been prepared by the Transport Technology Forum to help drive more effective and efficient management of existing and new road networks as a key national opportunity

Road transport will remain a key pillar of how people and goods move across the nation not just on strategic roads Improving road travel through technology is a core aim of the Forum We provide a neutral meeting place for senior policymakers and investors (government industry and network operators) who are investing in technology for roads management and operation

The Forum promotes a collaborative culture to open the opportunity and address the caution that has historically impeded efficiency and innovation

2

Executive Summary
















3

Executive Summary










4

Executive Summary








5

Executive Summary


6










































around pound4-5bn

Introduction
















7












8













9


1









10




2

2

3

3

4

4




11


5









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32

Executive Summary
















3

Executive Summary










4

Executive Summary








5

Executive Summary


6










































around pound4-5bn

Introduction
















7












8













9


1









10




2

2

3

3

4

4




11


5









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32

Executive Summary










4

Executive Summary








5

Executive Summary


6










































around pound4-5bn

Introduction
















7












8













9


1









10




2

2

3

3

4

4




11


5









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32

Executive Summary








5

Executive Summary


6










































around pound4-5bn

Introduction
















7












8













9


1









10




2

2

3

3

4

4




11


5









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32

Executive Summary


6










































around pound4-5bn

Introduction
















7












8













9


1









10




2

2

3

3

4

4




11


5









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32

Introduction
















7












8













9


1









10




2

2

3

3

4

4




11


5









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32












8













9


1









10




2

2

3

3

4

4




11


5









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32













9


1









10




2

2

3

3

4

4




11


5









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32









10




2

2

3

3

4

4




11


5









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32




11


5









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32









What causes it





12



6

6

7

7

8

8



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32



9

9

10

10











13










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32










14




11

11

12

12

13

13

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32

Safety












15


14





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32





Review of evidence









15

15

16

16

17

17

18

18

16



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32



















17

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32

















poundpound pound

DfT TSGB 2014



19

19

20

20

21

21

18



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32



















19













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32













22

22

23

23

24

24

25

25

20















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32















26

26

27

27

28

28

21






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32






22





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32





pound23





















nil ADEPT report


around pound4-6bn


29







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32







pound24


30

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32

IMPLICATIONS













25














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32














26














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32














27




31

31

32

32

33

33








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32








Basis








28



34

34

35

35













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32













29








30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32







30




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32




Date Dec 2017

By 5GAA
















31



By TSC April 2017








32



By TSC April 2017








32

the strategic business...• a clear and supportable strategic business case for continued national...

Documents